D is for defense
Which party can conduct a more credible campaign focused on national defense?Discuss round three of this week's Dust-Up.
Comments will close after two weeks.
From the Los Angeles Times
| Advertisement |
|
|
The Latest | news as it happens
- Monday's question of the day: What did you think of Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on fourth and two? - The Fabulous Forum 11/16/2009, 12:59 p.m.
- MOCA's permanent collection goes on view, temporarily - Culture Monster 11/16/2009, 12:46 p.m.
- Can sly 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' sneak into the Oscars' hen house? - The Envelope - Ultimate Awards Site 11/16/2009, 12:39 p.m.
- 'Project Runway': Tim Gunn carries on (to Season 7) - L.A. Times - Entertainment News 11/16/2009, 12:35 p.m.
- Leonid meteor shower 2009 to peak early Tuesday morning - Los Angeles Times Travel | Daily Deal Blog 11/16/2009, 12:34 p.m.
Save more than
The continued discussion that equate Iraq with national security is the Bush GOP theme for the election. The two are not related but the American citizens fail to recognize it as they failed to recognize the eventuality in Vietnam. Turn Iraq over to the UN as the Iraq people propose takes away the excuse to be there and to grab the oil. This is something the GOP would never agree to nor would the oil companies.
Ed Towers @ 11:40 PM PDT, Mar 12, 2008
The D's have carefully positioned themselves as the party of surrender. Any claim they have to a respectable defense posture is laughable!
Donald N Anderson @ 11:16 PM PDT, Mar 12, 2008
You have to be kidding. Democrats the party of defense? From what, marine recruiters?
Steve @ 10:15 PM PDT, Mar 12, 2008
Army Sgt. Anita Shaw said it best: "We need to be cleaning up the streets of the Unites States instead of cleaning up Iraq," Amen.
mustbheard @ 9:02 PM PDT, Mar 12, 2008